guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Fleshy creature
I don't think this definition is correct. As I understand, fleshy vs non-fleshy is not exactly constuct vs living creature. In my understanding of I have read so far on this wiki, Fleshy things INCLUDE zombies (i.e. executioners), but undead do not leave corpses behind. I have not been following a close watch on this so I made no changes to the article, but can anyone who is experiences as a necro verify that non-fleshy = leaves no corpse and fleshy = leaves a corpse. Thanks. --Karlos 13:18, 6 November 2005 (EST) :This article definetly needs to be rewritten. Being fleshy, being vulnerable to bleeding and leaving a corpse are three separate things. They are often linked, but there are exceptions. For example plants are not fleshy, but can bleed and leave a corpse. Also, I'm pretty sure some undead creatures (ghouls, zombies, ?) can bleed and have flesh, but don't leave a corpse. --Tetris L 07:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) ::This may have been the case in the past, but right now they can also be poisoned and infected with disease (except for Reed Stalkers, which are fleshless). Plants are fleshy from a game mechanics perspective, and they're fleshy in the same way a tomato's fleshy, and Succulent Junipers have meat. I've also been able to make bone fiends from the corpses of fleshy undead, and Zombie Warlocks and Necrid Horsemen can exploit ghoul and zombie corpses. If someone can find a "partially fleshy" creature that falls somewhere in between the properties of fleshy and fleshless creatures, they should note it in the article. -- Gordon Ecker 21:02, 10 August 2006 (CDT) :::Anyway, I'm going to remove the note on exceptions. If someone finds an exception, they can put the note back. -- Gordon Ecker 19:35, 16 August 2006 (CDT) I think "Fleshy" would be best defined as valnerable to conditions. Also, take note that some bosses that belong to species that shouldn't be fleshy are valnerable to conditions simply because they are bosses and while the species remains unfleshy the boss is definately fleshy.Fate 18:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Mr. Anonymous removed the note about ghouls and executioners being fleshy but not leaving corpses. Don't know what's correct. The previous discussion isn't explicit. --Fyren 09:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC) What does the red message say when you try to severe an invalid artery? I thought it was related to flesh. -PanSola 10:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure about Sever Artery, but I get the standard "target is immune to X (no flesh)" error message with Hunter's Shot. -- Gordon Ecker 21:02, 10 August 2006 (CDT) I know all skeleton types are not fleshy creatures, but are there others that are excepted from the "fleshy creatures" group? I'd like to create an exception list for the "fleshy creature" definition and also note it on the Rotting Flesh necro skill (and any others that are applicaple). Most undead, not just skeletons. "Ghost" type mobs. Golems/elementals. Dunno what else. --Fyren 08:51, 30 October 2005 (EST) Based on tests on Fire Elementals, temple guardians, an enchanted sword and a graven monolith I think that non-fleshy creatures can (at least now) suffer from deep wounds and have changed the article accordingly. Please ammend if you find differently for any monster. I have also noted that spirits are immune to all conditions including burning (see Searing Flames note for example). Surreality 14:36, 30 November 2006 (CST) Merge I counter-propose the merge proposal by proposing that the page Fleshy creature be merged here (ignoring GW:ulc) since that page seems to have information that supports this page, not the other way around. *cough* Because writing that confused me, I'm gonna simplify. The information in Fleshy creature seems like it supports this page. Fleshy creature is the proper page name because of GW:ulc; however, I think we should move this page over to creature and add creature's contents to the bottom of Creature. --Armond Warblade (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2006 (CDT) :I disagree with both merge proposals. The proper-case version of the article contained everything the incorrectly-cased article did, so I simply deleted the old article and merged the talk pages. I'm amazed the capitalized version survived as long as it did. :) —Tanaric 10:32, 23 October 2006 (CDT)